Christian baker vindicated by SCOTUS back in court for not baking a gender transitioning cake

Washington Times ^ | August 15th 2018 | Alex Swoyer

[Ennis85]

The Christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and was vindicated by the Supreme Court earlier this year is mounting another legal challenge this week after refusing to bake a gender-transitioning cake. Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against baker Jack Phillips for his religious beliefs, an attorney requested he create a cake that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside to represent a gender transition from male to female. As a Christian, Mr. Phillips would not make the cake since it conflicted with his beliefs, which was his same reasoning for refusing to bake the same-sex couple’s wedding cake. The state of Colorado has come after Mr. Phillips again, suggesting state law requires him to bake the gender change cake. It’s the newest complaint mounted against him, which has forced Mr. Phillips to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday. “The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty law firm defending Mr. Phillips.

[cyclotic]

My wife just told me about this. My first response is that the lawyer needs to put up or shut up. Once he gets surgically neutered, then he can ask about a cake.

Mike Farris and ADF is going to have fun with this one. He’s a brilliant attorney

[cuban leaf]

This guy must live in a really weird neighborhood.

[Mollypitcher1]

THIS nonsense is why we need LOSER PAYS. See how quickly the frivolous lawsuits vanish if this becomes law.
........................................................
This is why we need LESS LAWYERS in Congress. They’ll never vote out a money making scheme for themselves. Vite IN more business people who are sick and tired of paying lawyers’ exorbitant fees.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

This was inevitable given that the Supreme Court declined to address this issue head-on the first time around. Other than in the concurrence by Gorsuch and Alito, the Court focused on the Commission's overt anti-religious bias during the state hearing, not on the core issue of whether the baker had the right to refuse service.

So, someone filing a new Complaint/charge with the State of Colorado, and this issue coming up yet again, was predictable.

I suspect this is Kennedy's fault. He probably was unwilling to join a broader ruling, so Roberts could only get a majority by limiting the decision to the issue of bias at the hearing.

[Jagermonster]

Now it’s just malicious. One would think there would be repercussions to the attorney.

There very well could be, if the baker's counsel has the guts to ask for them, or if the judge is annoyed enough.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

[ * * * ]

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.

[ * * * ]

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.

[DefeatCorruption]

Guess that “live and let live” thing that many years ago was all the gay community claimed they wanted was a lie. Surprise.

---

Give them an inch and they want a mile.

[TalBlack]

BULLSHIT! Tell the courts and everybody else to go to hell.

[Mollypitcher1]

..VOTE IN.....

[Vaquero]

The removed organ can be put as a decoration on top of the cake. Now wouldn’t that be special? (Sarc off)

[hal ogen]

Maybe a “fudge “ cake with a mental illness theme???

[DuncanWaring]

” ... and lots of nuts.”.

[Red Badger]

ONLY PARTIALLY.

Their ultimate ‘goal’ is the TOTAL ‘normalization’ and ‘acceptance’ and eventually promotion of their perversions..........

Read ‘Brave New World’...................

[PGR88]

People celebrate this sort of thing with cake?

Well-paid, and well-funded professional activists looking to create a media sensation and push a narrative do, yes.

[Mr Rogers]

Just curious - can’t read the article because the Washington Times wants me to whitelist it. However, I don’t have any ad blockers installed, unless something is running in the background in Firefox. Didn’t see that in the Firefox options.

Anyone know how to “whitelist” a website when you aren’t using an ad blocker?

[trisham]

I read that in high school. I should read it again.

[SES1066]

Appears to be a form of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) operation where the litigators are determined to sue this business into oblivion. Since the SCOTUS case was decided on the very narrow grounds of obvious bias by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. With this case, the obvious tactic is to refuse to use any biased language and achieve the desired outcome of state denial of 1st Amendment rights based upon Civil Rights protections.

[VaeVictis]

More LGBT-Mafia tactics. They believe if you are not celebrating their sin with them and promoting them.... you must die.

Parallels to Sodom and Gomorrah.... they still want to force their lifestyle on outsiders.

[j.havenfarm]

I can’t abide how many important decisions in SCOTUS are based on the Chief’s desire to maintain collegiality among the justices, including those hell bent on destroying the Constitution. There was a majority that would have ruled on religious liberty grounds and settled this issue. Instead, roberts chose to go for the broader majority and have the ruling based on procedural unfairness before the rights commission. So we get to do this again because here are the zealots who want to crush anyone who disagrees with them

[AndyJackson]

I don’t want to know how it is decorated.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I don't see a hope at Rule 11 sanctions. First of all, the baker filed the federal lawsuit, and the state hasn't even responded yet. So there can't be any Rule 11 sanctions yet because the state hasn't filed a pleading.

Second, the state's actions to this point are the acts of a state commission, which are not subject to the rules of civil procedure because it is an administrative process, not a court process. So Rule 11 doesn't apply to the state's actions at all. Leaving that technical stuff aside.... Fact is, the Supreme Court's decision did not address the core issue of whether or not a baker could refuse to bake a cake that violated his religious beliefs. They ducked that core issue, and decided the case on the much narrower ground that there was bias at that particular Commission hearing.

So, Colorado just waited until someone else filed a new complaint. They then issued a new probable cause determination, and will schedule a hearing at some point. Nothing in the Supreme Court case precluded any of that.

What is needed is for a federal court to clearly recognize the right of the baker to refuse to bake that cake based on his religious beliefs, and that case has to make it all the way up to the Supreme Court. Of course, it's possible that some case like that from another state is already winding it' way through the appellate process.